From the NYT:
WASHINGTON — President Obama made addressing climate change the most prominent policy vow of his second Inaugural Address, setting in motion what Democrats say will be a deliberately paced but aggressive campaign built around the use of his executive powers to sidestep Congressional opposition.
“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that failure to do so would betray our children and future generations,” Mr. Obama said on Monday at the start of eight sentences on the subject, more than he devoted to any other specific area. “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”
This is laughable.
Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.
The “overwhelming judgement of science” ignores the scientific method. Science is about hypothesis, observation, analysis of results, and conclusions based on what theory seems to fit with the hypothesis and data. Sometimes hypotheses are proven wrong. Other times, people like the East Anglia Climate Research Unit simply fabricate observation data to confirm their hypothesis, since they already know the conclusion they want. So the “overwhelming judgement of science” is a complete fabrication.
Now, as to the second part, that “none can avoid” the devastation of nature. This sounds like some primitive culture fearful of the sky gods.
The witch doctor “scientist” tells the ignorant tribesmen that they must bring him virgins and make him chief of the tribe so that he can prevent those raging fires and powerful storms. Only he has the power to stop these – and you must stop eating of the fruit that grows by the river – only the medicine man may eat those sweet fruits because they give him strength to fight the storms! For you, the pitiful tribesman, it would harm you – but for him, it gives him the power he needs! So bring him those fruits! And bring him those virgins that he needs to keep his strength as well. Only he has the power – he, with overwhelming judgement of the sky gods – can protect you! Only he can protect you from the monster that comes in on those storms – the monster – OF MANBEARPIG!
Every time the storms are worse, it’s because the tribe hasn’t given him the power to fight manbearpig. Every time the fires are worse, it’s because they kept one of their daughters away from him, and he could not absorb her virgin powers and so he did not have the strength to do battle with manbearpig. Every time they keep some of the sweet river fruit to themselves – that’s why the drought came – because they were greedy and kept it from the shaman. Every time the ignorant tribesmen don’t do exactly as the medicine man commands, that’s why manbearpig will attack them.
For all the leftist accusations of fearmongering, this is probably one of the worst examples. They tell you that you’re responsible for the planet dying – if you don’t give them enough power to fight it. Since there’s never enough power to fight the weather, they just need more. And just like the small-scale tyrant shaman in our story holding the tribe in terror, so to do these global cooling global warming climate change fearmongers today try to hold us in terror.
The rich and powerful can buy carbon indulgences (offsets) so they can continue to sin against nature by their own theology – and conveniently that money goes into Al Gore’s pocket. Any who question this are considered heretics, and lumped with the most vile of people.
One article in particular from Micha Tomkiewicz, who is himself a holocaust survivor, has earned the ire of climate denialists around the web because in addition to the comparison of the tactics of global warming denialists and holocaust deniers, he additionally creates a moral comparison. While not saying it’s as bad a holocaust denial, Tomkiewicz does suggest they might be denying the possibility of a future holocaust:
I make my “climate change denier” claim for one reason. It’s easy today to teach students to condemn the Holocaust, but it’s much more difficult to teach them how to try to prevent future genocides. There are different kinds of genocides and they don’t repeat themselves; they come to us in different ways. I am not suggesting that the Holocaust is just like climate change. But what I am suggesting is that even though it’s hard to see a genocide – any genocide – coming. The future is hard to predict, but we can see this one coming. This genocide is of our own making, and it will effect everyone, not just one group or country.
Not to walk back to another topic too much, but the Holocaust was done by armed tyrants against unarmed men. The Holodomor, the Armenian Genocide, and numerous other genocides have been perpetrated by armed groups in power through various means against unarmed, subjugated groups. Relatively easy to understand. It’s actually easy to prevent future genocides – if people have the tools to resist, they can fight back. (That’s why the JPFO exists – to make sure of “Never Again”.)
With climate change, we have scientists who have equated their fight against Manbearpig to fighting against the Holocaust. They have declared “consensus” and that “the science is settled”. They invoke the murder of millions to shame into submission those who would oppose them. Any who would question their global cooling global warming climate change conclusions are considered vile, genocidal scum like the Nazis, worthy only of derision, ridicule, and considered subhuman trash who need to be exterminated themselves before they kill the planet.
That’s not how science works.
Science is a process of creating theories based on repeated observations. Science is not demonizing those who question. Science itself is questioning.
Alinskyite politics, where all the angels are on one side and all the devils are on the other, are like what current global cooling global warming climate changers are about.
If one were to look at this from an anthropological point of view, this would be a transparent power play, and every bit as clear as the tyrannical shaman. If one looks at it from a modern political point of view, one sees that this is watermelon environmentalism. That is, it’s green on the outside, red on the inside; environmentalism surrounding collectivism/socialism/communism. For some reason, the solutions to global cooling global warming climate change have always been the same.
From Zombie at PJ Media:
I just finished reading a terrifying new book about climate change. I learned this:
• Climate change is happening faster than we realize and it will have catastrophic consequences for mankind.
• There’s very little we can do to stop it at this late stage, but we might be able to save ourselves if we immediately take these necessary and drastic steps:
- Increase our reliance on alternative energy sources and stop using so much oil and other carbon-based fuels;
- Adopt energy-efficient practices in all aspects of our lives, however inconvenient;
- Impose punitive taxes on inefficient or polluting activities to discourage them;
- Funnel large sums of money from developed nations like the U.S. to Third World nations;
- In general embrace all environmental causes.
You of course recognize these as the solutions most often recommended to ameliorate the looming crisis of Global Warming. But there’s a little glitch in my narrative. Because although the book I read was indeed about climate change, it wasn’t about Global Warming at all; it was instead about “The Coming of the New Ice Age,” and it isn’t exactly “new” — it was published in 1977.
It’s a rather interesting book:
Oh noes, we’re all going to die!
Even the BBC agrees.
Interestingly, the “Impact Team” also gives space to the other faction of climatologists — whom they dub the “hot-earth men,” a primitive term for “Global Warmists.” The hot-earth men are the mortal enemies of the “cool-earth men,” i.e. the ice age predictors, who are obviously more correct and who are therefore given the soapbox throughout the book. What we see here in 1977 is an interesting historical pivot point: The crisis-mongers needed an ecological disaster to hype, and at that moment in history there were two factions battling for the microphone, each trumpeting the exact opposite scenario: the “hot-earth men” and the “cool-earth men.” The media weighed the two views, decided that the cool-earth men had more evidence, more team members and a better argument, and so ran with the “new ice age” story. When that didn’t pan out, they later dumped the cool-earth men and embraced their rivals.
And there’s the rub. We’ve been told all this stuff before. The solutions, as noted, are always the same – we as individuals have to give up our liberty to some governing body that will “save” us from ourselves; whether it be the weather shaman who demands the best food and our daughters, or whether it be the global cooling global warming climate change fearmongers today.
I’ll quote from the holocaust deniers=Manbearpig deniers guys again, attempting to explain it all away:
Climate change denialism shares all of these features. Denialists like Inhofe (Morano’s boss) allege a global warming “hoax”. This conspiracy theory suggests that thousands of scientists worldwide are all operating from the same playbook (the Protocols of the Al Gore), falsifying data for the purpose of creating regulations to restrict business, and secretly working to create one world government. Or that somehow peer-review and grant rewards only go to those who back the consensus, the classic “grantsmanship” conspiracy theory that is contradicted by the fact that scientists encourage and reward revolutionary results as long as they are well-grounded in data. It sounds ridiculous, but these are their arguments. How one could possibly manage to make thousands of people fabricate evidence for peer reviewed journals all to say the same thing and not be detected is beyond belief. And before the cranks show up and suggest the East Anglia emails are of any significance, let’s move on to number two:
The cherry picking of papers, often from journals that are overrun by cranks like Energy and Environment, and even the cherry-picking of individual data points or time periods is rampant. The theft of the East Anglia emails, which were then cherry-picked and quoted out of context to create the false appearance of deception on the part of scientists is another excellent example.
Second, like all big political movements with bigger objectives, these Manbearpig-worshipers may not realize what they’re doing. The Manbearpigger goes on to say that the East Anglia emails are meaningless because a bunch of other scientists who agree with Manbearpig agreed that they were meaningless. And anyone who questions them isn’t an expert, so they don’t realize how stupid they are and can’t make decisions (Dunning-Kruger).
Now, I may not know everything about climate science, but I subscribed to Science News for nearly a decade when they were in their weekly format. I cancelled when they went to bi-weekly and they added an editorial page. One of the first editorials they did was on the need for “advocacy science” to save us from Manbearpig. Suddenly, there was a political objective to science; there was a pressing political and emotional need that demanded that they find the “right conclusions” and make the “right policies”. That’s not science. That’s advocacy journalism at best, propaganda at worst – the gatekeeper to information makes the decision on what you need to know and what you don’t.
Just like I’m mocking global cooling global warming Manbearpig, so too is the Manbearpig worshiper mocking those who question his “settled” science, calling them cranks, quacks, and idiots who engage in cognative biases that make them think they know something, when only he, holy defender of the Codex of Science Truth Fact of Manbearpig can know the Righteous Word Of Manbearpig. Of course, I’m mocking him for his defense of rigid orthodoxy and Manbearpig zealotry. He’s going the Godwin’s law route because SHUT UP!
That’s a sprite. It’s a lightning phenomenon that wasn’t discovered until 1989.
I think that’s pretty cool, but it’s very sciency in a department I know little about. Just tossing it out there because it shows how little we as humankind still know, and how our understanding of the world is still yielding new discoveries.
But I know politicians, and I know people, and I know political swindlers who create crises to exploit. Human nature hasn’t changed.
To dissect the Manbearpig worshiper’s denial of any questioning his orthodoxy, there are many scientists taught by other scientists who are taught what has become politically unquestionable. Those who teach the teachers will dictate how the students learn. This is why they have lectures on subversion. Whether as overt as that or more subtle, it’s how people interact. Those who create bogus data, falsify it, or otherwise taint it with the conclusion they know they should reach aren’t necessarily doing so because their marching orders from Al Gore (who just sold his TV station to petro-barons in Qatar) – they’re doing so because that’s what they’ve been told to believe, whether or not it’s true. “Grantsmanship” also stem from the fact that the people handing out grants, the people involved in these circles, are mostly of the same mindset. They have the belief that they’re saving the world, and anyone who questions that is the devil. They don’t need marching orders – they’re individually capable of acting on their ideology, and the ideological guidance they’ve been given drives them. Thousands of people aren’t necessarily on some list of conspirators that parrot the party line, but they’re ideological clones – believing in the same thing. They are missionaries of Manbearpig, and no matter their sins, they are here to save you from yourself – and if you oppose them, you support the Holocaust.
Just to contrast, my ideological compass gears me towards the maximum amount of liberty for the maximum amount of people with the minimum of coercion. Individuals know what’s best for them in their own life. Those who make bad choices typically learn from experience and stop making those bad choices. Those who don’t live with the consequences of their actions – and that teaches them, too. With plenty of good examples, people can see what works and what doesn’t, and absent any enabling of bad choices, people will mostly make good ones for themselves. As individuals mature, they’ll see that protecting the freedom of others and helping to ensure the same choices they had are still around can lead to better lives for everyone, and they’ll raise their children up to make good decisions, or if they choose not to have children, they’ll still act as examples for others to follow or avoid, for good or ill.
Through that prism, I can see the same lists of demands from global cooling nuts in the 1970s as from global warming nuts in the 1990s as from “climate change” nuts today. They have the same ends, with their means only being separated by whether it’s hot or cold or just “different” outside.
Now, were I to do a apply the scientific method to this, I could do it this way:
Question: Is climate change valid?
Observation: Australia’s going through a hot summer, last summer where I live was hot. Maybe. But the backers for it aren’t acting very sciency.
Hypothesis: Climate change is a political tool.
Test the Hypothesis: We can observe trial & error in the news anyway, so I’ll run with that for now. We can see that those who defend climate change have changed their own positions from global cooling to global warming to now the non-substantive “change”. Further observation shows that those who support climate change have seemingly always demanded more control over the individual in order to fight climate change. Actions of climate change supporters mirror those of the political left. Data is all included in the above blog entry.
Analysis, Interpretation & Conclusion: Climate change mirrors politics on the left in a lot of ways. Whether it’s the left hijacking science or simply riding its coattails is unknown, but not necessarily important, either. The results of changes that climate change supporters wish to push are the same as Malthusians and those who believe in both people overpopulation and consumption overpopulation believe. No one is exempt from control by either the political or scientific entities if they were to get their way. Climate science itself might not be a political tool, and would be an interesting science to study, but it certainly is not settled in the least. There are those using it as a political cudgel to fabricate a crisis in order to push for demands they were making before they settled on the reason of “climate change”. Those who are on the receiving end of “climate change” are expected to change their living standards, while those who are dictating that “climate change” is a threat stand to benefit from it and gain power, like the primitive shaman. This hurts the majority of individuals while favoring a few.
For all the Manbearpig worshiper claims that “evil energy corporations are behind it” and other such accusations, the problem with that is that those same “evil energy corporations” have investments in so-called green energy. GE has made huge amounts of money by claiming to be green, while scamming the taxpayer – all by getting Manbearpig worshipers to tilt at windmills. Petrochemical dictators in the Middle East have been funding leftist environmentalist propaganda in the US in order to protect their own bottom lines.
So, to sum up – Manbearpig is a scam. It’s a power play. We’ve been told it’s going to be hot, it’s going to be cold, it’s going to be different and everything else. Global cooling/warming/climate change is a political tool right now to push an agenda. It is watermelon environmentalism, with collectivism at its core, with reduction of the individual at its core. The science really doesn’t matter, because the means to that power, whether it be cooling/warming/change don’t matter. It’s a politically fabricated crisis that can be always on the horizon, a crisis that has never materialized and doesn’t ever have to materialize, but a crisis that demands immediate action. It’s an ongoing constant threat that means those who are politically correct need more power from you the invididual, and they can always demand you do something “for the children”.
From the 10 10 Campaign, which wanted people to cut their carbon emissions by 10%. If you haven’t seen it, you should really watch it – it gives you some idea of how these people think:
It’s amazing how much the left loves the blood of children to try to force you to do things.
Manbearpig remains a fictional fear-mongering tool used as a means to an end – power. And despite being a giant fraud, Manbearpig is back for 2013.